Tuesday, June 28, 2011

In May 2000, feminist idol Betty Friedan released her autobiography entitled "My life so far". One of her most vocal critics was her ex-husband, Carl Friedan - who strongly objected to her claim that he had abused her during their marriage. There was not one iota of proof the support her claim. He quickly revealed that it was her - not him - who was the violent spouse during their marriage and further he criticized her Publisher and book reviewer in the New York Times for not "fact-checking" any of her claims. Betty quickly retracted her allegations.

David Horowitz wrote an interesting piece about this titled "Feminism's Dirtiest Secret" in which he stripped this observation about both Betty and Carl.

[As well documented in her biography, Betty] Friedan, from her college days and until her mid-thirties, was a Stalinist marxist (or a camp follower thereof).

[This] secret was shared by hundreds of her comrades on the Left – though not, of course, by the unsuspecting American public.

The actual facts of Friedan's life—that she was a professional marxist ideologue, that her husband supported her full-time writing and research, that she had a maid and lived in a Hudson river mansion, attending very little to household duties—were inconvenient to the persona and the theory she was determined to promote.

Even the much-abused Mr. Friedan – also a leftist .... writes;

"I am proud of what she did for the world… Betty being monstrous in pursuit of her goals doesn't bother me at all. She changed the course of history almost single-handedly and it took a `monster' perhaps, a driven, super-aggressive, egocentric, almost lunatic dynamo to rock the world the way she did. Unfortunately, she was the same person at home, where this kind of conduct does not work."

Horowitz notes: "What Mr. Friedan seems to be saying is that it was all right for his wife to abuse everyone else, but not to abuse him. This sort of thinking is typical of the Left."

Saturday, June 25, 2011

The Rwanda Genocide was closely followed at the time by CBC due to the close connection Canada seemed to have with this former French colony. It also gained momentum as a Canadian - Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire - was placed in charge of a UN Peacekeeping force dispatched to that country. I think this tragedy only truly gained worldwide popular attention when the popular film Hotel Rwanda was released in 2004.

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, 65, was also found guilty of inciting rape by the UNbacked International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which is prosecuting those accused of orchestrating the killings of more than 800,000 people in 1994.

Her acendance to power was due to her close friendship with Agathe Kanziga, the future wife of the Hutu president Juvénal Habyarimana, whose assassination on April 6, 1994, triggered the genocide that left about 800,000 people dead over 100 days, most of them minority Tutsis.

Habyarimana built his regime on from a collection of leftists and social democrat's. Habyarimana death remains a mystery (his small jet crashed on approach to Kigali Airport with a number of close advisers - it was strongly rumoured to have been shot-down by a SAM) but the French maintained his political rival Paul Kagame the likely antogonist - and he indeed stifled any serious attempt for an investigation afterwards. (For me, this was always and eerie echo of Sept 1961, when United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld's died under strangely similar circumstances when his aircraft crashed in Zambia under mysterious circumstances during UN cease-fire negotiations in that country's Independence conflict.) Soon after Habyarimana's death the UN was sent in to keep the peace and Kagame began his stealthy efforts at taking power and in the end he was the instigator of the Tutsi genocide.

In the end, Pauline betrayed Habyarimana ideals to tribal bloodshed. So much for liberalism.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Then a young firebrand, Malcolm X railed against all white people, including "white liberals" who sought to integrate themselves in the struggles of black people. Add white cream to black coffee, he analogized, and you weaken it.

But he changed. In a letter from Birmingham jail April 16, 1963 he wrote:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."One sweet little white girl is a good thing for race relations. A large majority of somewhat intransigent white people is not a good thing for race relations.

In June 1963, John F. Kennedy introduced his Civil Rights legislation that allowed Federal enforcement of desegregation upon states - it was game on and he was assassinated 5 months later on Nov 22, 1963.

During this time Malcolm (apparently) appeared to experience a change of heart from hard-line racial "separationist" views of the Nation of Islam and after returning from his Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca in April 13 1964 this change caused a great rift between him and the leadership of Nation of Islam. Unfortunately, within the year, he too was assassinated (Feb 21, 1965) and suspicions ran high that Nation of Islam leaders like Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan were somehow involved, but this was never proved.

What I find interesting is the change in Malcolm X's radical viewpoint and disillusionment (a tipping point?) regarding "shallow understanding" and "lukewarm acceptance".

Well, President Obama has not done that well with his 2 previous Father's Day addresses - and at least this year he holds back to just pontificating, rather than abrasively criticizing others Dads. To be sure, is was a nice little anecdote about him being an Assistant Coach for his youngest daughter's (Malia?) basketball team - but there is a supercilious air to it all.

However, it this interview he really tells us alot MORE by explaining his modern day parenting plan - riding shot-gun with his daughters in case any of them finds themselves in a "dangerous" situation (ie with a boy).

I know - oh it's a joke, don't take him seriously! - but I am not so sure it doesn't tell us EVERYTHING we need to know about this advocate for the "nanny state" President.

It is another example of the terrible cost of the injustice Family Law has brought to America. I was impressed that the local rag - The Sentinel - covered it as well as they did due to the traditional reluctance to "publicize" suicides. (I have often thought this is purely misandric, gender discrimination as we have become de-sensitized to perpetual accounts of women being assaulted etc. and no one know about the suicide crisis (mostly male) because we never hear about them. People just "go missing" and we rarely hear about the outcome/resolution if it is a suicide.)

Anyways, Tom Ball - it is a crime what happened and even though I didn't know ya, you will be missed. I have taken you comments seriously and will attempt to see that they are heard. Last year Alberta Views Magazine included an article entitled "Turquoise Sea" by a writer whose father committed suicide - and her angst and hollowness that followed. (I have PDF here.)

One of Tom Ball's best suggestions was for the cops to add "I was just following orders" in German to their Miranda warning when making the mandatory DV arrests. To help, I translated it with Goggle"Ich warnur Befehle befolgt"

Finally, I am going to ask the Disenfranchised Dad's Choir to sing their biggest hit.

( June 20 Update: I am abit disappointed to find that teh Keene Sentinel has already taken down Tom Ball's "Manifesto" - so I have reprinted and archived as PDF excerpt from the FreeKeene blog here.)

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Presumably, such facts have been suppressed in the past to avoid charges of racial profiling - however it seems that it is more likely a case of religious islamic ideology/indoctrination that these men believe defiling "Western" (aka ethic Norwegian women) in this manner is acceptable behaviour. I want to make it clear that just because many charges of rape involving divorce and separation turn out to be false - there are actual cases that are real. These are clearly unacceptable.

Just as many in our community are beginning to realize that there are multiple pathologies facing the Somali's community due to growing up in a war-zone without many of the cultural advantages available to normal Canadians - these are all issues related to multicultural immigration policy.

You need to install or upgrade Flash Player to view this content, install or upgrade by clicking here.

From there we learn that:
1) The women only charged her former (common-law) husband 2mths later when they were battling over custody of their daughter.
2) LEAF funded intervenor status.
3) She consented to the [twisted + demeaning] sexual activity while conscious, before passing out for 3 minutes (brain damage?) and continued with regular intercourse afterwards.

The major conclusion: “Parliament’s definition of consent does not extend to advance consent to sexual acts committed while the complainant is unconscious.”

But Justice Morris Fish, in writing the dissenting opinion, makes an emphatic point: “It is a fundamental principle of the law governing sexual assault in Canada that no means ‘no’ and only yes means ‘yes.’ K.D. said yes, not no …

“The provisions of the Criminal Code regarding consent to sexual contact and the case law were intended to protect women against abuse by others. They aim to safeguard and enhance the sexual autonomy of women, and not to make choices for them.”

K.D. made that choice and expressed it clearly. But the Supreme Court — essentially infantilizing the woman — has ruled otherwise.